Its not arguable. Games are not art. Not on the same level as movies/books.

It is my opinion video games are a form of artistic expression. Just because future games will feature better mechanics and graphics than games of today does not mean they lose value.

hi

Huh? Of course films and books age. Things that seemed like great special effects when they came out way back when don't seem so great nowadays. Cultural attitudes and values change. Pop in West Side Story and listen to all the dated lingo. Crack open Frankenstein and read all the extraordinarily flowery "nobody talks like this" dialogue. Look up the old Star Trek and see how cheap the special effects look.

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is 10 years old and it hasn't aged a day. Games that put priority on art direction over raw graphical power do that.

Yes, because black and white movies alongside early color movies haven't aged in a similar way? Right?

Games like MGS3 and Bioshock are, without a doubt.

The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is 10 years old and it hasn't aged a day. Games that put priority on art direction over raw graphical power do that.

scoots9

So your only measure of art in games is visual? What of the story? Games are pretty young as an art form, you've barely giving it any time to mature, before damning it as "non-art". And even then, there are 3d games that their beauty will be timeless, Journey being one of them.

And film is pretty damn overrated, being so short by nature, they can't easily tell much of a story; it's like a haiku compared to a novel. Yes, they have the best visual style/budget per second, but it's still hugely limited otherwise.

Films once weren't considered art.

OP is dum.

I think the subject is pretty complicated. I think the more degree of freedom that you give a player in the videogame the less art it becomes. I mean, I guess an open world sandbox game can be considered a blank canvas, the person painting on the canvas isn't the artwork, but the videogames purpose is for him to interact with the canvas, it's not looking to express it's own feelings, it's looking to express the users. A person that sells canvases isn't an artist, but a person that fills it in is.C_Glass

even in the most open world of games the user has very little input on the world. it's still the game maker that decides every possible thing you could do and makes it possible for you to do that. you may be pushing the buttons but you aren't actually changing anything in that world.  

also, story is still not open in open world games....  

They are a form of graphic design, which is art.

Are movies and books only art as you have no control over the product?

Aren't games art as the creators worked you into their masterpiece?

[QUOTE="C_Glass"]I think the subject is pretty complicated. I think the more degree of freedom that you give a player in the videogame the less art it becomes. I mean, I guess an open world sandbox game can be considered a blank canvas, the person painting on the canvas isn't the artwork, but the videogames purpose is for him to interact with the canvas, it's not looking to express it's own feelings, it's looking to express the users. A person that sells canvases isn't an artist, but a person that fills it in is.MuD3

even in the most open world of games the user has very little input on the world. it's still the game maker that decides every possible thing you could do and makes it possible for you to do that. you may be pushing the buttons but you aren't actually changing anything in that world.  

also, story is still not open in open world games....  

But that's not the intent of the game, it's intent is for the player to explore, forge his own path, and play the game as he see's fit. The stories are there but they're not the emphasis, which is why open sandbox games generally have pretty bad storylines.  

[QUOTE="MuD3"]

[QUOTE="C_Glass"]I think the subject is pretty complicated. I think the more degree of freedom that you give a player in the videogame the less art it becomes. I mean, I guess an open world sandbox game can be considered a blank canvas, the person painting on the canvas isn't the artwork, but the videogames purpose is for him to interact with the canvas, it's not looking to express it's own feelings, it's looking to express the users. A person that sells canvases isn't an artist, but a person that fills it in is.C_Glass

even in the most open world of games the user has very little input on the world. it's still the game maker that decides every possible thing you could do and makes it possible for you to do that. you may be pushing the buttons but you aren't actually changing anything in that world.  

also, story is still not open in open world games....  

But that's not the intent of the game, it's intent is for the player to explore, forge his own path, and play the game as he see's fit. The stories are there but they're not the emphasis, which is why open sandbox games generally have pretty bad storylines.  

nothing you said negates my point... the only thing an open world games accomplishes is the illusion of control. everything you could possibly do was already thought up by the game makers and the only reason you can do them is because they made it so you could do that.

you don't "forge your own path" you choose which path, that has already been forged, to go down first.

[QUOTE="C_Glass"]

[QUOTE="MuD3"]

 

even in the most open world of games the user has very little input on the world. it's still the game maker that decides every possible thing you could do and makes it possible for you to do that. you may be pushing the buttons but you aren't actually changing anything in that world.  

also, story is still not open in open world games....  

MuD3

But that's not the intent of the game, it's intent is for the player to explore, forge his own path, and play the game as he see's fit. The stories are there but they're not the emphasis, which is why open sandbox games generally have pretty bad storylines.  

nothing you said negates my point... the only thing an open world games accomplishes is the illusion of control. everything you could possibly do was already thought up by the game makers and the only reason you can do them is because they made it so you could do that.

you don't "forge your own path" you choose which path, that has already been forged, to go down first.

That's why mods exist, my friend. Anyone can add to the canvas.

[QUOTE="C_Glass"]

[QUOTE="MuD3"]

 

even in the most open world of games the user has very little input on the world. it's still the game maker that decides every possible thing you could do and makes it possible for you to do that. you may be pushing the buttons but you aren't actually changing anything in that world.  

also, story is still not open in open world games....  

MuD3

But that's not the intent of the game, it's intent is for the player to explore, forge his own path, and play the game as he see's fit. The stories are there but they're not the emphasis, which is why open sandbox games generally have pretty bad storylines.  

nothing you said negates my point... the only thing an open world games accomplishes is the illusion of control. everything you could possibly do was already thought up by the game makers and the only reason you can do them is because they made it so you could do that.

you don't "forge your own path" you choose which path, that has already been forged, to go down first.

I think that even if you don't think that video games today could be considered as art, its current state could pave the way for that years down the road..

I think that even if you don't think that video games today could be considered as art, its current state could pave the way for that years down the road..

Wolf-Man2006

Sorry guy, this is totally incorrect. Art in itself is a creative means of expression. Video games encompass both the art of visual, and the art of tones. Even one step further, it takes both of those and makes it interactive with the viewer. It's not just art- it's pretty amazing art when you think about it. 

Even if you don't want to think about it- um, video games are visual creations. So are pictures. So are movies. Whats the difference? 

How is this even arguable? Music, art, film, photo, whatever- its all entertainment media, all artistic media.

[QUOTE="Wolf-Man2006"]

I think that even if you don't think that video games today could be considered as art, its current state could pave the way for that years down the road..

TidusIsBest

Have you played Heavy Rain? Journey? Talk about interactive movies.

And lol, seriously? Movies don't degrade? You actually like 40's films and Walter Matthau? No way. Don't bullsh*t me. Visual fidelity has increased by an insane amount. 

Games are definitely art... on the same level as movies and books.

It's definitely not possible to argue otherwise, at least not with solid arguments that won't resulti in placing arbitrary restraints on art, and won't attempt to define art by non-essentials.

Games are art, deal with it :).

Movies don't age?  Music doesn't age?  the only thing that doesn't age in a technical sense is books, cause there is no audio or video.  Please don't be rediculous.  How can games NOT be art when there is music, drawing, story, and more in it?  of course they are (can be) art.

You actually like 40's films? No way. Don't bullsh*t me.Shmiity

Agreed. Video games are entertainment that require quite a bit of talent and craftmanship, but they most certainly are not art. 

I rest my case.

Sorry guy, this is totally incorrect. Art in itself is a creative means of expression. Video games encompass both the art of visual, and the art of tones. Even one step further, it takes both of those and makes it interactive with the viewer. It's not just art- it's pretty amazing art when you think about it. 

Even if you don't want to think about it- um, video games are visual creations. So are pictures. So are movies. Whats the difference? 

How is this even arguable? Music, art, film, photo, whatever- its all entertainment media, all artistic media.

Shmiity